Exactly which Law of the Land is being VIOLATED by someone Assigned Female at Birth WEARING man's suit and tie in public? How does WEARING clothes in public amount to "fraudulent misrepresentation"? Who has been DEFRAUDED? Who has been MISREPRESENTED? Who has been HARMED by a transperson WEARING clothes in public?
A little fairness in the argument. The issue of "misrepresentation" is not limited to the clothes worn. Mind you, in the end, it only matters once it gets down to the point of intimate relationships, i. e. Sexual in nature, but still before the actual act of sex occurs. While one's gender is important and should not be invalidated, the same goes for one's sexuality. And the reality is when it comes down to it, one is attracted (setting aside asexuals for the moment) male, females, men, or women with combinations possible, usually as either gender or ATB sex. And when it comes to gender, for the one attracted, the identity of the attracting one is irrelevant, harsh as it sounds. IIRC, you are, per your claim, a trans woman, a MtF. Now for me my attraction is to women. It doesn't matter what is between their legs. Odds are I would be attracted to you, pre or post op. However, if you look too much like a man to me, even if you are cis female, I won't be attracted. For others, the physical sex is the more important component of sexual attraction. Sadly this is a reality that most want to overlook. To ignore the reality of one's sexuality is the same as ignoring the reality of one's gender. Let me ask you this. Would I be misrepresenting if I claimed I was a trans man instead of a cis man? Why or why not?
To men? Probably not. As the average CIS, Straight male is looking for a woman, men (CIS or Trans) would be ignored. I'm of the opinion that a lot of the outrage stems from sexism and homophobia. The thought that a woman they're attracted to might have once been male puts them in a bad situation. The first scenario that comes along is a fear of ridicule for falling for "the fraudulent misrepresentation". After all, there are a number of SitComs, comedy films, and popular songs that cover that. Will Smith covered that in his earlier career when it was DJ Jazzy Jeff and The Fresh Prince and the song "The Girlie Had a Moustache" Ray William Johnson had "Transphobic Techno" where the oft spoken phrase was "B---h Got a Penis" And I could go on and on. Another scenario might be a bit of homophobic self-loathing as they realize that they actually developed feelings for a guy regardless of the fact that what they really were attracted to was the transwoman's femininity. Which can be a shock for those raised in intolerant families who really push the heteronormative concepts. The third scenario that comes to mind stems from that last bit. Fear should the fact get back to the intolerant, heteronormative family...they themselves might be caught up in a face of disdain from their families. "Didn't we raise you better than that? How could you have not known?" and such like. Transmen would not be given a second glance by straight men.
Not to nitpick but the fallacious allegation was FRAUDULENT misrepresentation as in an INTENT to commit a CRIMINAL deception. As far as MISREPRESENTATION goes let's take a look at how Society has misrepresented transpeople in the past. Take the classic movie Psycho. There is a part in the movie that states that it was the WEARING of his mother's clothes as the REASON why he was a murderous sociopath. That is but one of many examples as documented here; https://aninjusticemag.com/a-timeline-of-transgender-horror-90d707b71e2d When it comes to pointing fingers regarding misrepresentation those doing the pointing are being DISINGENUOUS. That isn't harsh, it is reality. However just to CLARIFY one point here, sexual ATTRACTION is NOT the same thing as GENDER. Gender is who you self identify as being whereas who you are attracted to has nothing to do with gender. No one is doing that. That depends entirely upon YOUR motivation. There are FtM transmales who look like male models with buff bodies. There are cis-males with the same physiques. Telling them apart is well nigh impossible so you could claim to be a transmale if you so choose and no one would be any the wiser. So that comes back to your motivation. Without knowing that your question cannot be addressed.
You seem to have mistaken my point. Fraudulent misrepresentation, at least in the context of the eyes of the anti-trans, is not limited to the clothing worn. IOW, the one making the claim that there is harm because of fraudulent misrepresentation might not have even been thinking about the clothing aspect, but all the other aspects. You on the other hand jumped immediately to clothing as if that were the only aspect possible. I was pointing out that their grievence might be promoted by a different aspect. This counters nothing I said. I am not making any claims that the anti-trans don't misrepresent transgender people all the time. Worse, then tend to completely ignore FtM and act as if MtF's are predators and seeking to attack women and children. Unless you have mistakenly conflated one's gender with one's own attractions, I slightly disagree. For me, for example, gender is more important than sex. Although I have to admit that it is my perception of their gender. I have dated trans women, pre-op even, and then there are transwomen who look too male, whom I would not date. In theory, if a cis man were to look female enough, I would consider dating him. I have not dated cis women simply because they looked too much like a man. You are correct that their actual gender does not matter to my attraction, but then for me and many other neither does their sex. Sadly you are wrong. Here is a list of articles which deal with the very topic.
No strawman. No snowman either. All other protestant churches cannot make the claim of being the true Church since they came out of another church, The Catholic Church. If it's the extension of Peter from former days to the presence, all other churches have no claim. However, the Catholic Church is not an extension of the Church formed in the meridian of time of Christ and the Apostles to John and Paul. The apostasy has completely changed that Church from it's foundation of Apostles and Prophets, priesthood offices (Melchizedek and Aaronic (levitical) which holds the authority and communication from God to mankind. That leaves the only possibility of the Restored Church. And, all those who splintered off the Restored Church are not true churches with authority, doctrine and ordinances. There's only one Church that fits then and that's the Salt Lake City church of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Now, we can go back to the topic. Homosexuals go that rout via choice, not DNA or Biology.
But it's okay for you to do it and not be called out or debated on it? Can we say "Cancel Culture!" Again, there is no 100% conclusion that homosexuality is something people are born with. There isn't even 50% proof. There is just some scientific studies out there that people pushing their form of wokism with fuzzy words of "maybe," possibly be" as fact. Typical in science programs and magazines. It's done all the time with physics and astronomy.
I'll re-type your last sentence with your own belief. "You had to LEARN about that theist "crap" that you are trying to IMPOSE on others." It's also interesting that atheists have attempted to prove that their is a God gene that makes half the people feel a drive of the existence of God. Yet, now you deny this?
This this the first I have heard of anything like that. Evidence? I'm not even asking for evidence that the supposed "God gene" is real, just that there is more than a dozen people making the claim.
Are you this lazy? Just Google it. "The God gene hypothesis proposes that a specific gene, called vesicular monoamine transporter 2 (VMAT2), predisposes humans towards spiritual or mystic experiences...By analyzing the genetic makeup of over a thousand people of different ages and backgrounds, and comparing their DNA samples against a scale that measures spirituality, Hamer actually identified a specific "God gene" that appears to influence spirituality." - https://www.researchgate.net/publication/336639951_God_Gene
Kindly refrain from calling him lazy. It's hard to do any real research from a cell phone which is all we've had access to since about 1730 EDT. We were out looking at houses and getting dinner at a local diner we haven't tried for a while (or at all in the case of two of us). Secondly, now that I am home (he's running laundry back to my daughter's house) I've managed to do a little research. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/neuroscience/vesicular-monoamine-transporter-2 Which the TL : DR version is that it's something to look at in regards to Type 1 Diabetes and Parkinson's Disease. Nothing regarding Spirituality. In this article... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2262126/ So a scientist thinks there's a "God Gene" or a series of genes that influence spirituality. So what does that prove in the grand scheme of things? Not a sodding thing. There are scientists who still believe in Flat Earth, the faking of the moon landing, and Hollow Earth. Not at this rate.
You don't seem to understand what a strawman is, or you don't seem to understand what the other churches are saying. A strawman is where I say A and then you present an argument as if I said B and refute that. Every time you try to explain why all you are doing is reinforcing my point. Almost all of the churches claim that they are they true church because of this and that, and that the other churches have lost their way. It doesn't matter what explanations you give, because it still boils down to "we are the only true way and all others are not". That is the claim of almost all religions and their denominations, with some exceptions. See? you can't even get that right. The topic is gender and whether it exists as a separate innate trait from one's sex (adj). This is the topic I've been asking you to get back to so that I can make counter argument to it, but you keep going back to the church and to homosexuality, neither of which is the topic.
Skruddgemire has already point out that your single study has not been reproduced, a key factor to proving a given theory. You seem to like such one shot studies which are then never reproduced later.
Talk about lazy strawman arguments. Are you serious? That's the best you can do deflecting the facts? I don't know if there is a "God" gene. Whether half of the people have it and half don't? I'm willing to bet that every person has it. In our pre-mortal spirit life before we descended from heaven, we agreed to come to this earth where we may dwell. And, we committed to the Godhead that we will prove ourselves worthy to return after our mortal demise by doing all things whatsoever the Lord commands us in the days and times we live in. The test won't be passed by scientific or empirical evidence. The test must be passed by faith in Christ (The Lord). So, to be equitable, we all should be able to detect the truth with faith. The Light of Christ (not the Holy Ghost) is one way our faith can grow and understand the Gospel truths. From there, we need the influence and eventually the individual gift of the Holy Ghost to complete our faith and testimonies of the Gospel Truths that I've been sharing. So, it would make sense that something in our bodies would assist our spirits to work together and develop faith, hope and charity (the pure love of Christ).
Okay, gender. Gender if male or female, period. You are either male or female. There is no choice in the matter.
And you call me lazy? You’re the one who last stated “Now, can we go back to the topic?” And you’re dragging us back off track again.
What about people who present both genitalia? Or those who don’t present either? What gender are they? If there are only two choices, what about them? There is a person who was born with a vagina, was raised as female, was confused by the fact that she didn’t start menstruating, and was discovered to have two testicles next to her stomach. She suffers from 17 beta-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase which means that she doesn’t have the hormones required to develop into the secondary sexual characteristics of female. Doctors say that she *should* have been a CIS Male at birth had it not been for the biological flamingo-up. What do you call that person then? Someone who presented as, was raised as, thought of herself as being female…who should have been something else based on biology. What would *you* call that person and is she destined for hell for not being what she had no idea she was supposed to be? I mean more bound to hell than she already is for not following the bestest, most one-truest, religion of all time in the history of ever.
Ok now let's go with that. What is it that makes a person male of female? Is it one specific trait that will always be one or the other? Or is it a combination of traits, that only if they all align will render male or female? Are there exceptions, and if so what is that person?
"The number of births where the baby is intersex has been reported to be as low as 0.018% or as high as roughly 1.7%, depending on which conditions are counted as intersex. The number of births with ambiguous genitals is in the range of 0.02% to 0.05%.....True hermaphroditism represents of 5% of all disorders of sex development" -wikipedia.org/wiki/True_hermaphroditism There are extremely rare cases of fertility in "truly hermaphroditic" humans. In 1994 a study on 283 cases found 21 pregnancies from 10 true hermaphrodites, while one allegedly fathered a child. As of 2010, there have been at least 11 reported cases of fertility in true hermaphrodite humans in the scientific literature, with one case of a person with XY-predominant (96%) giving birth. However, there have been no documented cases of individuals being fertile as males... But although hermaphroditism is common among invertebrates and occurs in some fish and other vertebrates, contrary to urban legends, human hermaphrodites do not exist. — Jay Phelan - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_hermaphroditism" The fact is, they are still male or female based on their DNA. As to how a person behaves will be based on what they know themselves to be. From what I read, that's as well-known by the persons as their DNA. I noticed that you even called this woman a "SHE." What is the DNA of this person? We have this ability in our day and age. It's not unusual for testicles not to drop prior to birth. I was one of those and had to have surgery when I was 2.5 years old. My DNA says I'm a male. I am and I'm not confused. So, what will be her situation at the judgment seat? If she doesn't accept the true Gospel that has the authority, it will be much like everyone else, Terrestrial Glory or Telestial Glory in HEAVEN. Just not Celestial Glory. The Lord will figure this one out.
So a person who is born with a vagina and has an XY chromosome pair is a male and thus should act like and be treated as a male?
This is not an argument. This is you flailing about with your religion and bashing anyone who doesn't want to have anything to with your religion. You may think that your religion is the "One True Religion." So what? Damn near every other religion thinks the exact thing. Even down to the whole "If you don't accept my particular flavor of religion you're going to hell!" You are no more special for your devout faith in your religion than anyone else is in theirs. And if this is all you're going to do, this is the only way you're going to "debate" (please note the sarcasm quotes), you can do it without me.
There are MALES who have XX DNA and FEMALES with XY DNA. There is also XXY DNA and VARIATIONS of the CHROMOSOMES in the DNA that are essentially a ROLL of the genetic dice with EVERY single person. So once again you demonstrate that you LACK the necessary subject matter knowledge to engage on this topic. There is Scientific evidence supporting Gender. I have little doubt there will be even MORE of it in the FUTURE.
Yes sir! If someone who is XY and wants to "act" like XX, that's there decision of choice. Eyyyyuuuuu!!!
